Crouch order

[hruza]

As indicated, "fixing the spear firmly in the ground" (so if you know the troops' panoply you'll know the dimensions of the standard spears) implies a clear positioning of the torso; i.e. crouching or kneeing...or so I understand it.

Why would it imply crouching or kneeling? Dimensions of the spears varied, but they were typically longer then height of the average man.

This isn't spearman but picture is cutting pike off at about average length of the typical spear so for illustration it serves fine. It's picture of the standard position when receiving cavalry charge. As you can seen, one can plant and hold spear in the ground without crouching or kneeling without much problems:

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Sure hruza!, what you say, it may seem like a 15th or 16th century tactic, but infantry troops equipped with kontos or menavlion were already performing them then. However, that is not what is at issue here.

Back to the Phoulkon subject (no pike, no kontos, no menavlion; only shield and short spear (javelin size)), there is an undeniable maxim which states that the first and second men are lower possitioned. The word "crouched" does not appear explicitly, it is true; however the reader is supposed to have a minimum of knowledge in the matter thus a right interpretation.
It is for this reason that it is implied that the first man is with one knee on the ground with spear fixed, the second man is bent over the first one with the spear fixed (to make it clear, like a pikeman) and the third man is standing more upright, covering the second man with his shield holding the spear in the air over his head.

Here are the data, yours are the conclusions. 

 

[hruza]

Back to the Phoulkon subject (no pike, no kontos, no menavlion; only shield and short spear (javelin size)),

Where is mention of the spear length in the text?

there is an undeniable maxim which states that the first and second men are lower possitioned.

There is no such thing mentioned in the text. It doesn't say anything about the height of the men in the first and second rank. What it states is that the men in third rank should "stand more upright". From your own citation:

"The third of them, the one who is with the others in position standing more upright..."

Which implies that the first and second are standing less upright, but still standing and not couching. Hence need for word "more".

The word "crouched" does not appear explicitly, it is true; however the reader is supposed to have a minimum of knowledge in the matter thus a right interpretation.

Absence of the evidence is not evidence. Writer of the Strategicon might as well assumed knowledge of some common facts and so he could omit them from the text. But it was knowledge of the practice of the day and you would have to first provide evidence that crouching in this situation was practice of the day.

It is for this reason that it is implied that the first man is with one knee on the ground with spear fixed, the second man is bent over the first one with the spear fixed (to make it clear, like a pikeman)

You have yourself argued that "fixing spear in to the ground" equals crouching or kneeling. If the second man is required to fix his spear in to the ground jet he is not crouching or kneeling, then your whole argument falls apart. Because if men in the second rank can fix their spears in to the ground without crouching, so can the men in the first.

 

[Piconi]

The picture that Terco posted with kneelin is from a reenactment, which is nowadays a highly professional event, backed up by multiple historians, military tacticians, medical teams, war journalists, so that the event can be as historicaly realistic as possible, which is the key in any reenactment, what the fans and participants are most nitpicky about too.

So i would trust them first and foremost, and not our own vague guesses here on this topic.

That specific picture out of the way, kneeling itself WAS a huge part of many tactics throughout the history, in so many books i've read since i started taking serious interest in history from about the age of 10 until now (20 years later), it would not make sence to go through all of them and find specific mentions in each and every one.

All of this reminds me of a kid down the street that asked me many years ago how do i know the melting point of lead if i haven't tested it myself.
There's a thing called common knowelege, and there is no way possible you can always be right, even when you have the time in between posts to check some basic facts up, let alone during the live conversation with a person.

 

[Younes]

Imagine not believing humans could move their leg joints in a way as to be able to crouch a few hundreds to a thousand years ago during battle 


Just try moving your legs a bit and maybe you will see that's its doable when you do it now, and most likely also did in the past of human history.

 

[Kernowek]

I feel this is getting heated, but here's my two cents, It's more about context.

A shield wall is a specific formation of interlocking shields in a line with multiple ranks used in an anti-infantry context. These shield walls would often come into direct, shield to shield contact and thusly a person trying to brace a shield crouched while being crushed between huge masses of both friendly and enemy troops would be trampled and killed. (Mostly concerning Anglo-Saxon style round shields)

A lowered shield wall was almost certainly exclusively an anti-cavalry formation (Again with round shields). - which would later lead to the schiltron then pike and polearm formations without shields.

Other formations such as the Phoulkon was both offensive and defensive, meaning logically (unless people walked on their knees) the formation were standing and on the move and verses cavalry would almost certainly crouch in order for the spears to be locked to ward against horses. That formation is a jack of all trades formation to be ready for anything - It very clearly states that it is a marching order for the army to be prepared "This maneuver can be executed
while the army is on the march or
when she's coding." so you're all right.

"As they advanced, light infantry from the rear would shoot arrows at the enemy while the heavy infantry could hurl martiobarbuli darts or throw their spears before closing in to engage in hand-to-hand combat with the spatha sword. If faced with enemy cavalry, the first three ranks of the phoulkon would form a shield wall (not having to significantly lower due to the shield shape as per the picture of the reenactment) and thrust their spears outwards while fixing the ends to the ground, while the third and rear ranks would hurl projectiles and the light infantry shoot arrows."

 

[hruza]

The picture that Terco posted with kneelin is from a reenactment, which is nowadays a highly professional event, backed up by multiple historians, military tacticians, medical teams, war journalists, so that the event can be as historicaly realistic as possible, which is the key in any reenactment, what the fans and participants are most nitpicky about too.

Let me guess: you have list of all the reenactments "nowadays" with names of all "historians, military tacticians, medics, war journalists" which attended every one of them.

It's really hard to reply to these kinds of remarks without been offensive. First of all, you don't have slightest idea were that photo was taken and who participated, what are doing and why (you googling it now does not count). Second of all, just as anything else, reenactments can be good and bad. Third, reenactment doesn't mean that what they are doing is something proven as a historical fact, they can as well be doing what's called experimental history/archaeology. Proving that certain theories are possible in practice to begin with. Fact that somebody is reenacting doesn't mean anything. And third, reenactment is still not a historical source. If somebody is reenacting something based on the historical source, then you should be able to provide that source. You can't.

Terco_Viejo is at last providing some sources for his claims, although what he argues are his interpretations rather then something explicitly mentioned there. You can't even do that.

So i would trust them first and foremost, and not our own vague guesses here on this topic.

Vague guess is something you can't back up by any evidence. Which is what you do.

That specific picture out of the way, kneeling itself WAS a huge part of many tactics throughout the history, in so many books i've read since i started taking serious interest in history from about the age of 10 until now (20 years later), it would not make sence to go through all of them and find specific mentions in each and every one.

You are unable to go and find one specific example in a single one of them, much less all of them.

 

[Piconi]

hruza, why do you get heated over this? I told you nice when, why and where, your comment "it doesen`t count now to google" is firstly applied to you !

You are the one claiming that kneeling and crouching was not part of military tactics. That is just......i have no words. I have 3 pictures from history books i already prepared on my greywool imagedump for a different thread, but seems i would`ve shared with you in vain.

To me it seems you haven`t yet found the "right mouse click on image and search google for image" feature yet . . . If you have, you would have seen which (multiple) literature the reenactors used for their formation. But i somehow doubt it would change anything in this, or any of your discussions.

It is always the same with you in every.single.thread.
But to no avail . . . See ya arround

 

[mAtAtA]

I guess these are some of the images Piconi was talking about, he already posted them in another thread, only for range units for now: (don`t know how to quote and then edit)
This is ancient Japanese archery, passed on from generation to generation, in its original form, before you ask something like "from which century is this video from" . . .
Fun fact :they yell because in their culture its great shame on you to kill someone silently. (Being a ninja was dishonorable)


He also posted that he got the "bear claw" tactics (crouching while knocking arrows and/or firing) from the literature "Science and Civilization in China: Chemistry and Chemical Technology. Military Technology - Missiles and Sieges", that was used to nock arrows and bolts in crouching,kneeling an laying position.

For ranged it is wide known, also volley fire with 1st row crouched was in medieval times, from western europe to ottomans.

And for crouching in melee formations, the information is so many, from ancient era, but you somehow dont find it, or dont want to find.
Roman Triarii after the Camillian reforms, in defensive formation guarding the flank from enemy cavalry.

It was not as often and was used in well organised armies (early greek,roman, byzantine...) , famous scottish Schiltron is also a spear formation sometimes used with 1st row kneeling.
Whats wrong, is everything ok ? I hope you are well, cheers !

 

[hruza]

hruza, why do you get heated over this?...

Heated is one that can't provide single source and instead always resorts to ad hominem attacks. You.

I have 3 pictures from history books i already prepared on my greywool imagedump for a different thread, but seems i would`ve shared with you in vain.

Unfortunately you will not share it here, just like you didn't share anything else.

This is ancient Japanese archery...

And Robin Hood was shooting perfidious Normans from the trees. And I don't care, because that's not combat battlefield formation.

And for crouching in melee formations, the information is so many, from ancient era, but you somehow dont find it, or dont want to find.
Roman Triarii after the Camillian reforms, in defensive formation guarding the flank from enemy cavalry.

It would help if you had the slightest idea what you're talking about:

For the Roarii advanced in to the intervals of the two first lines and strengthened the hastati and principles; and the triarii kneeling on their right knee, waited the general's orders to rise.

But as the battle still continued, and the Latines had the advantage in many places through the superiority of their numbers, Manlius, upon hearing what had happened to his colleague, and, as justice and piety required, payed the tribute both of tears and praise which so glorious a death deserved, was for a while in suspense, whether it was time for the triarii to rise, but afterwards thinking it would be better to preserve them for the last extremity,...

...and that they were come to the last line, when the consul said to the triarii, "Rise fellow soldiers, with fresh strength, and engage with men already tired with fighting..."

The History, Titus Livius, book VIII

I hope you will be well, cheers!

 

[mAtAtA]

Thanks. LOL hruza, you seriously didnt search for it on google. It is Wacher's books where the formation of kneeling was in. You should look it up, it is not on the first page, but i too found it, i actualy have 1 of his books.

Until then, think about how strange it is you think only you are right, while 5 other people don't.
Lol, and you say I dont have slightest idea what im talking about.
P.s.
Using latin words doesen't cover up your ignorance. Bye now

 

[hruza]

Thanks. LOL hruza, you seriously didnt search for it on google. It is Wacher's books where the formation of kneeling was in. You should look it up, it is not on the first page, but i too found it, i actualy have 1 of his books.

No you don't. Your original comment shows complete ignorance and lack of understanding why are triarii kneeling. And you lack enough personal integrity and honesty to admit it.

 

[Kernowek]

Boys pls.

隐藏

 

[mAtAtA]

Your original comment shows complete ignorance and lack of understanding why are triarii kneeling.

LoL if you ever read any books, you would see that there was more reasons for them to kneel than to let the inexperienced soldiers fight and gain experience.

And you lack enough personal integrity and honesty to admit it.

You just described yourself perfectly. And i tought you were just having a bad day being reason for your unrational comments.
But it turns out.... you are just simply that way. I'm so sorry

 

[Sgt._Pepper]

For ranged it is wide known, also volley fire with 1st row crouched was in medieval times, from western europe to ottomans.

Do you have a source for that? I thought that there was no volley fire outside of China during the "Middle Ages".

 

[mAtAtA]

Villalon, L. J. Andrew (200, The Hundred Years War (part II): Different Vistas, Brill Academic Pub, page 75, in the description of the Battle of Agincourt.

 

[Sgt._Pepper]

Thank you for the source.

It seems we were thinking of different things. The description on page 83 "the terrifying thrum of 5,000 bowstrings singing in unison" seems to say that the volley here means that all archers fire at once. I was thinking about Chinese crossbowmen firing in turns like musketmen would do.

It would be nice if this kind of volley fire would be added as a command, so that all archers would shoot at once instead of everyone by themselves.

 

[XDaron]

Please don't. I don't want to see Hollywood film and fantasy game features in the MB. No double headed axes, fire arrows, no double wielding, flaming pigs and no crouching in battle and other nonsense.

yeah guys, let's not ruin the historical accuracy, characteristic of the mount and blade series, it's not like it's a fantasy game centered around it's mechanics instead of realism right?


I swear to god this is what every medieval game discussion devolves to, there will always be fine line between fun and realism, and striking a balance that satisfies the public is completely impossible, hruza, consider the fact that you can play as a female warrior weilding a 2h axe jumping around and killing people, is this really the game for someone that gives realism that much importance like you?  now, there is a possibility that you are a singleplayer fan, in that case, I'm sure there will be some mods that amplify realism for you.

 

[hruza]

I swear to god this is what every medieval game discussion devolves to, there will always be fine line between fun and realism, and striking a balance that satisfies the public is completely impossible

Had Medieval history wasn't fun, nobody would make a game about it. It's precisely Medieval (historical in general) setting that draws players to these games. Realism and fun are not two mutually exclusive things, you see. Moreover it's not about 100% realism. Not that such a thing can be achieved in the computer simulation anyway. It's about common sense and basic integrity of the game story. If you make a game abased on Medieval England, then you can't put Storm Trooper laser rifle in to it. Unless you create some logical or quasi logical explanation how it got to Medieval England.

And then there is something else... children that grow up on these games sincerely believe that what they see in the games is authentic. mAtAtA is case in point. There is no mention of triarii been used on the flanks against cavalry in kneeling position in any historical source. But you know where you can see this sort of nonsense all the time? In Rome Total War games. Of course in Total War it makes perfect sense, because game mechanic is made in a unrealistic way.

You can't claim that historical based game should not be accurate because it's a game and then go on and say that triarii guarded flanks kneeling based on what you have learned in the game. Wherever game developers want it or not, they are influencing and educating generations of players who then take what they see in their games as a historical facts. It becomes part of popular culture. When they set to make a game in historical setting, they need to stay true to that setting, or they should make it clear that setting is not historical, but rather just fantasy based on history. Good example is Battle Brothers, game very similar to MB. It's absolutely clear from the game setting, that it's just loosely inspired by the historical setting. You have trolls, witches and giant worms roaming around.

There is increased call for more accuracy in both historical games and historical films. And that's a good thing. They need it.

 

[Younes]

I swear to god this is what every medieval game discussion devolves to, there will always be fine line between fun and realism, and striking a balance that satisfies the public is completely impossible

Had Medieval history wasn't fun, nobody would make a game about it. It's precisely Medieval (historical in general) setting that draws players to these games. Realism and fun are not two mutually exclusive things, you see. Moreover it's not about 100% realism. Not that such a thing can be achieved in the computer simulation anyway. It's about common sense and basic integrity of the game story. If you make a game abased on Medieval England, then you can't put Storm Trooper laser rifle in to it. Unless you create some logical or quasi logical explanation how it got to Medieval England.

And then there is something else... children that grow up on these games sincerely believe that what they see in the games is authentic. mAtAtA is case in point. There is no mention of triarii been used on the flanks against cavalry in kneeling position in any historical source. But you know where you can see this sort of nonsense all the time? In Rome Total War games. Of course in Total War it makes perfect sense, because game mechanic is made in a unrealistic way.

You can't claim that historical based game should not be accurate because it's a game and then go on and say that triarii guarded flanks kneeling based on what you have learned in the game. Wherever game developers want it or not, they are influencing and educating generations of players who then take what they see in their games as a historical facts. It becomes part of popular culture. When they set to make a game in historical setting, they need to stay true to that setting, or they should make it clear that setting is not historical, but rather just fantasy based on history. Good example is Battle Brothers, game very similar to MB. It's absolutely clear from the game setting, that it's just loosely inspired by the historical setting. You have trolls, witches and giant worms roaming around.

There is increased call for more accuracy in both historical games and historical films. And that's a good thing. They need it.

The average joe does not care how historical the game is. This is an absurd claim.

You watching some historical review of a movie and it having 1 million views does not mean there is a high demand for it. There is demand for a fun game, not ruined by this kind of stupid ideas that its not "historical accurate" in a game where all the factions are not even named after "historical" nations or kingdoms or whatever you want to call it.